The Preparation of a “Disgusting Orgy”

Published:Proletary, No. 19, November 5, 1907.

      Published according to the text inProletary.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1972,

      Moscow,Volume 13,

      pages147-152.Translated:Bernard IsaacsTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Inassessing the tasks of the Social-Democrats in the
Second Russian Duma and the aspirations of the Russian liberals, Franz
Mehring, the well-known German Marxist, wrote that German Liberalism has
for the last sixty years been following a wretched and shameful path under
cover of the slogan: “positive work”. When the National
Assembly, on a single night in the summer of 1789, achieved the
emancipation of the French peasants, that brilliantly venal ad venturer
Mirabeau, the incomparable hero of constitutional democracy, described the
event by the picturesque expression “a disgusting orgy”. In our
(Social-Democratic) opinion, however, this was positive work. On the
contrary, the emancipation of the Prussian peasants, which dragged on at a
snail’s pace for sixty years, from 1807 to 1865, and took cruel and
ruthless toll of countless peasant lives, was, from the point of view of
our liberals, “positive work which they proclaim from the
house-tops. In our opinion it was a “disgusting

				orgy”.[1]

ThusMehring wrote. We cannot but recall his words today, when the Third Duma is
opening, when the Octobrists want to start a disgusting orgy in real earnest,
when the Cadets are ready to take part in it with servile zeal, when even among
the Social-Democrats there are (to our shame) Plekhanovites who are prepared to
assist in this orgy. Let us take a closer look at all these preparations.

Theeve of the Third Duma was marked by a spate of meetings of the different
parties on the question of Duma tactics. The Octobrists at their Moscow
conference drew up a draft programme for the parliamentary group of the Union of
October Seventeenth, and their spokesman, Mr. Plevako, raised the “banner
of the Russian Liberal-Constitutional Party” at a banquet in Moscow. The
Cadets completed theirFifth so-called “Party” Congress in three or four days. The
Left-wing Cadets were utterly defeated and thrown out of the Cadets’
Central Committee (which consists of 38 members, who completely control the
“party”). The Right-wing Cadets obtained complete freedom of
action—in the spirit of the “report on tactics in the Third
Duma”, that remarkable, “historical” justification of the
“disgusting orgy”. The Social-Democrats started to discuss
Third Duma tactics in the Central Committee and at the conference of the
St. Petersburg organisation of the R.S.D.L.P.

Theparliamentary programme of the Octobrists is no table for its frankadmissionof the counter-revolutionary policy which the. Cadets
virtually pursued in the Second Duma behind a screen of phrases and excuses. For
instance, the Octobrists openly declare that revision of the fundamental laws
and the electoral law is “untimely” on the grounds that it is first
of all necessary to “lull and abolish the war of passions and class
interests” by introducing “a number of pressing reforms”. The
Cadets did not say this, but they acted in just this way in the Second
Duma. Another example. The Octobrists stand “for drawing the widest
possible circle of people into participation in self-government”, while
at the same time “ensuring proper representation” of the
nobility. This outspoken counter-revolutionism is more honest than the Cadets’
policy of promising universal, equal, and direct suffrage by secret ballot while
in reality fiercely opposing election of the local land commit tees by such
means both in the First and in the Second Dumas and proposing that these
committees should consist of peasants and landlords in equal numbers, that is,
the same idea of “ensuring representation of the nobility”. Yet
another example. The Octobrists openly reject the compulsory alienation of the
landlords’ land. The Cadets “accept” it, but accept it in such a
way that they vote in the Second Duma with the Right against the Trudoviks and
the Social-Democrats on the question of winding up the agrarian debate with a
general formula accepting compulsory alienation.

Onterms consolidating the “victories” of the counter revolution the
Octobrists are prepared to promise all kinds of liberal reforms. These include
“extension of the Duma’sbudgetary rights” (this is not a joke!), “extension of its rights of
supervision over the legality of the government’s actions”, measures
guaranteeing the independence of the courts, “removal of constraints on
workers’ economic organisations and on economic strikes” (“which do
not prejudice state and public interests”), “strengthening the
bases of lawful civil liberties”, and so on and so forth. The Octobrist
governing party is as lavish of “liberal” phrases as the government
of Mr. Stolypin itself.

Howdid the Cadets put the question of their attitude towards the Octobrists at
their congress? The handful of Left Cadets was found to consist of blusterers
who were unable even to pose the question intelligently, while the mass of the
Right-wing knights of disguised Octobrism rallied strongly to smother the truth
in the meanest fashion. The impotence of the Left Cadets is best illustrated by
their draft resolution. Its first point recommends the Cadets “to adopt a
stand of sharp opposition without aligning themselves with the Octobrists, who
are hostile to it (to the Party of Constitutional-Democrats) both in spirit and
in programme”. The second point calls on the Cadets “not to withhold
support from Bills that lead the country along the path of liberation and
democratic reforms, no matter from what source they originate”. This is a
joke, because Bills capable of obtaining a majority in the Third Dumacannotoriginate from any other source than the Octobrists! The Left
Cadet gentlemen fully deserve their defeat, for they behaved like wretched
cowards or fools, who are incapable of saying clearly and bluntly that it is a
disgrace to intend to legislate in such a Duma, that voting with the Octobrists
means supporting the counter-revolution. Some individuals among the Left
Cadets, apparently, understood the state of affairs, but being drawing-room
democrats, they showed their cowardice at the congress. At any rate, Mr. Zhilkin
inTovarishchmentions aprivatespeech by the Cadet Safonov,
in which the latter said:

“The Cadet group, in my opinion, should now take the stand of the Trudovik
group in the First Duma. Opposition, strong speeches—and nothing
more. Yetthose people intend to legislate. I wonder how? By
friendship, by analliance with the Octobrists? What a strange
tendencytowards the Right. The whole country is Left, and we are going Right”
(Tovarishch, No. 407). Apparently, Mr. Safonov has lucid intervals
of shame and conscience ... but only privately!

Onthe other hand, Mr. Milyukov and his gang revealed themselves in all their
old glory as shameless and unprincipled careerists. In the adopted resolution
they gloss over the issue in order to fool the public at large, in the way that
the liberal heroes of parliamentary prostitution have always fooled the
people. In the congress resolutions (“theses”)there is not a
word about the Octobrists! This is incredible, but it is a fact. The crux
of the Cadets’ congress was the question of the Constitutional-Democrats voting
with the Octobrists. All the debates centred around this question. But that is
just what the art of the bourgeois politicians consists in—tofoolthe masses, toconcealtheir parliamentary
hocus-pocus. The “theses on tactics” adopted by the Congress of the
Constitutional-Democrats on October 26 are a classical document, showing, in
the first place, how the Cadets coalesce with the Octobrists, and, secondly, how
resolutions designed to hoodwink the masses are writ ten by the liberals. This
document should be compared with the “parliamentary programme” of
the “Union of October Seventeenth”. This document should be compared
with the “report on tactics” which Milyukov delivered at the
Congress of the Constitutional-Democrats (Rech, No. 255). The following
are the most important passages of this report:

“Placedin opposition, the party, however [precisely—however!],
will not play the role of an irresponsible minority, in the sense in which it
itself used this term to describe the conduct of the extreme Left in the
Duma” [translated from parliamentary into simple and frank language,
this means: please, Octobrist-gentlemen, give us a place, we are only an
opposition in name!]. “It will not regard the Duma as a means for
preparing actions outside the Duma, but as a supreme organ of state, possessing
a share of the supreme authority as precisely defined by law” [are not the
Octobrists, who bluntly declare the revision of the fundamental laws to be
untimely, more honest?]. “The party is going into the Third Duma, as into
the firsttwo, with the firm intention of taking an active part in its legislative
work. The party always considered this kind of activity to be the chief and
basic activity, in contrast to both the agitational aims of the Left and
the conspiratorial activity of the Right.” As for
“conspiracy”, gentle men, that is another lie, for inbothDumas youconspiredwith the ministers or the
ministers’ lackeys. As for the disavowal of agitation, this is a complete
and irrevocable disavowal ofdemocracy.

Tolegislate in the Third Duma it is necessary either way, directly or
indirectly, to unite with the Octobrists and take one’s stand
unequivocally with the counter-revolution and with the defence of its
victories. The Cadets try to pass this obvious thing over in silence. They let
the cat out of the bag, however, in another passage of the report: “The
use of the legislative initiative should be made dependent on a preliminary
elucidation of thepracticabilityof the party projects”. The
practicability depends on the Octobrists. To elucidate it means having recourse
to the Octobrists by the backstairs. To make one’s initiative depend on
this elucidation means to curtail one’s own projectsfor the benefit
ofthe Octobrists, it means making one s own policy dependent on that of
the Octobrists.

Thereis no middle way, gentlemen. Either a party of real opposition, in which
case—an irresponsible minority. Or a party of active counter-revolutionary
legislation, in which case—servility to the Octobrists. The Cadets chose
the latter, and as a reward for this the Black-Hundred Duma is said to be
electing the Right-wing Cadet Maklakov to the presidium! Maklakov deserves it.

Buthow are we to account for the Social-Democrats who are capable, even today,
of talking about support for the Cadets? Such Social-Democrats are the product
of intellectualist philistinism, the philistinism of Russian life as a
whole. Such Social-Democrats have been bred by Plekhanov’s vulgarisation
of Marxism. At the conference of the St. Petersburg Social-Democratic
organisation it became clear that the Mensheviks, following in the wake of the
Right Duma, are going still farther to the right. They are prepared to support
the Octobrists, i. e., thegovernmentparty! Then why should not the
Social-Democrats vote forKhomyakov, who is better than Bobrinsky? It is a question of expediency!
Why not vote for Bobrinsky if the choice is only between him and
Purishkevich? Why not support the Octobrists against the Black Hundreds,
since Marx taught us to support the bourgeoisie against the feudal

squirearchy?[2]

Yes,one is ashamed to admit the fact, but it is a sin to conceal it, that
Plekhanov has led his Mensheviks to heap infinite disgrace upon
Social-Democracy. Like a true “man in the muffler”, he kept
repeating the same old words about “support for the bourgeoisie”,
and by hismechanical repetitionobscured all understanding of the
special tasks arid special conditions of the proletariat’s struggle in the
revolution and the struggle against the counter-revolution. In Marx the whole
analysis of revolutionary epochs turns on the struggle of genuine democrats and
particularly of the proletariat against constitutional illusions, against the
treachery of liberalism, against counter-revolution. Plekhanov recognises
Marx—but it is a counterfeit of Marx in the manner of Struve. Let
Plekhanov now reap what he has sown!

Thecounter-revolutionary nature of liberalism in the Russian
revolution was proved by the whole course of events prior to October 17 and
especially after October 17. The Third Duma will make even the
blind see. The alignment of the Cadets with the Octobrists is a political
fact, and no excuses and subterfuges can disguise it. Let the news paper of
the dull-witted Bernsteinians,Tovarishch, confine itself to
impotent whining in this connection, intermingling this whining with
pushing the Cadets towards the Octobrists, with political pimping. The
Social-Democrats have to understand the class reasons for the
counter-revolutionary nature of Russian liberalism. The Social-Democrats
must ruthlessly expose in the Duma all the approaches made to the
Octobrists by the Cadets, all the baseness of so-called democratic
liberalism. The workers’ party will dismiss with contempt all
considerations about “guarding the flame” and will unfurl the
banner of socialism and the banner of the revolution!

[1]Seepresent edition, Vol. 12, p. 386.—Ed.

[2]SeeK. Marx and F. Engels,Manifesto of the Communist Party,
Chapter IV.